IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lamps] Re: Attestation OID Registry

"Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de> Wed, 18 February 2026 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de>
X-Original-To: spasm@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: spasm@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643CAB94D30F for <spasm@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:27:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=h-brs.de
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lzyFjEolNJZ for <spasm@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx01.h-brs.de (mx01.h-brs.de [194.95.62.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8997EB94D2F4 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:27:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=h-brs.de; i=@h-brs.de; q=dns/txt; s=20240830; t=1771424858; x=1802960858; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=aMPzaoZHYuBbC84P24eR8m5cKwGhx5lW/1DTtkr1MbA=; b=M52vyiNLyt/vFeJLTTDVE3/OKtOXF6QXU1QL4LJAUZJnElmXvO6HqzRZ ZHwyhZLm6ED/irDC5G2iXNiZV1rcv/xMRy0ArumvIKBq0H6K6GsXjs68Z UiPu5+uEEBTbdXmBuROqj4WCtsmCFRIJBDitwj649W9cl2QWNRvYvCCMN y8Pp8S8xFBPx7Qvb6du2IfuWtRVtLce7GEizmdaEbxwi0x018Z0rhOFkX DcoDfVckcbfCUykN5WmY8TrIalG6ZXzzJl03dS1MRZc6uo5mYPg9kV1N/ R1IlS+VNnXXDYVtde49/BOPUkS0xlIFMJhHAAyM+W0OFgStHOJ0bmT3Tc Q==;
X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 5oQXQ2uYT6mfbJdV1R5C4Q==
X-CSE-MsgGUID: +SbI2u8cTBWk085HXK8X0w==
X-ThreatScanner-Verdict: Negative
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,298,1763420400"; d="scan'208,217";a="3791431"
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
Received: from unknown (HELO ex1.h-brs.local) ([10.122.5.11]) by mx01.h-brs.de with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2026 15:27:31 +0100
Received: from ex1.h-brs.local (10.122.5.11) by ex1.h-brs.local (10.122.5.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.35; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:27:30 +0100
Received: from ex1.h-brs.local ([fe80::c833:6932:4550:df9b]) by ex1.h-brs.local ([fe80::c833:6932:4550:df9b%10]) with mapi id 15.02.2562.035; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:27:30 +0100
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de>
To: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Re: Attestation OID Registry
Thread-Index: AQHcoMrbO63V2rFhGk2Xv0LS/tyi4rWISLCAgAA6MSA=
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 14:27:30 +0000
Message-ID: <53991b69eab4425eac99fe6074a43019@h-brs.de>
References: <AS8PR10MB74276E8C13BD44D1E171163CEE6AA@AS8PR10MB7427.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <5F42AEA7-6549-4817-978A-FFF489C6C2E1@redhoundsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <5F42AEA7-6549-4817-978A-FFF489C6C2E1@redhoundsoftware.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [194.95.62.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53991b69eab4425eac99fe6074a43019hbrsde_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: WH5OAQCNI4JCBWV3PP7BKGXTTOVJZE5O
X-Message-ID-Hash: WH5OAQCNI4JCBWV3PP7BKGXTTOVJZE5O
X-MailFrom: hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spasm.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [lamps] Re: Attestation OID Registry
List-Id: This is the mail list for the LAMPS Working Group <spasm.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/z03StOENa6ngUlMIiJY9ENmfqAM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spasm-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spasm-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spasm-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Carl!

My main reason for stepping back from the registry idea for now is that I want to get the document finished. I see more value in putting a completed spec in the hands of developers so we can make forward progress.

Ciao
Hannes

Von: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Februar 2026 12:56
An: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes <hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de>; spasm@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [lamps] Re: Attestation OID Registry

I’d favor a using registry over folklore and recall support for having the registry as a source for specs in the thread you referenced. Nothing about the scope changes to the document suggests eliminating the registry.


On Feb 18, 2026, at 6:36 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com<mailto:hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>> wrote:

Hi Carl,

the Attestation OID registry was meant as a convenience for developers so that they can find relevant information directly via the IANA registry. So, formally there is no need to have it. There is also no enforcement to add attestation formats to that registry either. So, it might not necessarily be complete.

Without this registry developers will have to get information about the encoding formats from other sources, for example from a website or Github repository.

Ciao
Hannes


From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com<mailto:carl@redhoundsoftware.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:26 PM
To: Tschofenig, Hannes <hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de<mailto:hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de>>; spasm@ietf.org<mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
Subject: [lamps] Re: Attestation OID Registry

Without the registry, how would one know what specification to use when processing an attestation conveyed per the CSR attestation spec?

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de<mailto:hannes.tschofenig@h-brs.de>>
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 at 2:21 AM
To: "spasm@ietf.org<mailto:spasm@ietf.org>" <spasm@ietf.org<mailto:spasm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [lamps] Attestation OID Registry

Hi all,

with the work of the CSR attestation design team late last year the scope of the draft was reduced quite a bit. Witnessing the discussion around the attestation OID registry I believe it is best to further reduce the scope of the draft.

I am therefore proposing to remove the registry from the draft. I prefer to get implementers to use the draft in production over discussing nice-to-have features.

I have created a PR and you can find it here:
https://github.com/lamps-wg/csr-attestation/pull/235

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________ Spasm mailing list -- spasm@ietf.org<mailto:spasm@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to spasm-leave@ietf.org<mailto:spasm-leave@ietf.org>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status